Search

The focus of Cosmetics Europe's ocular toxicity programme is on development of testing strategies and defined approaches for identification of ocular effects of chemicals in the context of OECD's Guidance Document on an Integrated Approach on Testing and Assessment (IATA) for Serious Eye Damage and Eye Irritation. Cosmetics Europe created a comprehensive database of chemicals for which in vitro data are available with corresponding historical in vivo Draize eye data and physicochemical properties. This database allowed further exploration of the initially proposed strategies from the CON4EI project and to identify opportunities for refinement. One key outcome of this project is that combining in vitro test methods (RhCE and BCOP LLBO) with physicochemical properties in a two-step Bottom-Up approach applicable to neat liquids, resulted in an improvement of the specificity, without reducing the sensitivity, when compared to the combination of in vitro methods alone. The Bottom-Up approach proposed here for neat liquids correctly predicted 58.3% (EpiOcular™ EIT followed by BCOP LLBO) to 62.6% (SkinEthic™ HCE EIT followed by BCOP LLBO) of No Cat., 59.1% to 68.7% of Cat. 2, and 76.5% of Cat. 1. Incorporating specific physicochemical properties with this Bottom-Up approach increased the correct identification of No Cat. neat liquids to between 72.7% and 79.7%., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The focus of Cosmetics Europe's programme on serious eye damage/eye irritation is on development of testing strategies and defined approaches for identification of ocular effects of chemicals in the context of OECD's Guidance Document on an Integrated Approach on Testing and Assessment (IATA) for Serious Eye Damage and Eye Irritation. Cosmetics Europe created a comprehensive database of chemicals for which in vitro data are available with corresponding historical in vivo Draize eye data. This database allowed further exploration of the initially proposed strategies from the CON4EI project and to identify opportunities for refinement. The current analysis focused on the development of a defined approach, applicable to liquid non-surfactant chemicals, neat and in dilution, that can distinguish between the three UN GHS categories (Cat. 1, Cat. 2, and No Cat.). Combining the modified-protocol Short Time Exposure (STE) test method (OECD TG 491 with extension to highly volatile substances) with the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Laser Light-Based Opacitometer (BCOP LLBO) test method in a Bottom-Up approach identified 81.2% Cat. 1, 56.3% Cat. 2, and 85.3% No. Cat correctly, with an NPV of 96.7% and a PPV of 68.6%. Therefore, the performance of the defined approach was better than the standalone test methods., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

A thorough understanding of which of the effects assessed in the in vivo Draize eye test are responsible for driving UN GHS/EU CLP classification is critical for an adequate selection of chemicals to be used in the development and/or evaluation of alternative methods/strategies and for properly assessing their predictive capacity and limitations. For this reason, Cosmetics Europe has compiled a database of Draize data (Draize eye test Reference Database, DRD) from external lists that were created to support past validation activities. This database contains 681 independent in vivo studies on 634 individual chemicals representing a wide range of chemical classes. A description of all the ocular effects observed in vivo, i.e. degree of severity and persistence of corneal opacity (CO), iritis, and/or conjunctiva effects, was added for each individual study in the database, and the studies were categorised according to their UN GHS/EU CLP classification and the main effect driving the classification. An evaluation of the various in vivo drivers of classification compiled in the database was performed to establish which of these are most important from a regulatory point of view. These analyses established that the most important drivers for Cat 1 Classification are (1) CO mean ≥ 3 (days 1-3) (severity) and (2) CO persistence on day 21 in the absence of severity, and those for Cat 2 classification are (3) CO mean ≥ 1 and (4) conjunctival redness mean ≥ 2. Moreover, it is shown that all classifiable effects (including persistence and CO = 4) should be present in ≥60 % of the animals to drive a classification. As a consequence, our analyses suggest the need for a critical revision of the UN GHS/EU CLP decision criteria for the Cat 1 classification of chemicals. Finally, a number of key criteria are identified that should be taken into consideration when selecting reference chemicals for the development, evaluation and/or validation of alternative methods and/or strategies for serious eye damage/eye irritation testing. Most important, the DRD is an invaluable tool for any future activity involving the selection of reference chemicals., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Cosmetics Europe recently established HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry as a suitable alternative endpoint detection system for measurement of formazan in the MTT-reduction assay of reconstructed human tissue test methods irrespective of the test system involved. This addressed a known limitation for such test methods that use optical density for measurement of formazan and may be incompatible for evaluation of strong MTT reducer and/or coloured chemicals. To build on the original project, Cosmetics Europe has undertaken a second study that focuses on evaluation of chemicals with functionalities relevant to cosmetic products. Such chemicals were primarily identified from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) 2010 memorandum (addendum) on the in vitro test EpiSkin™ for skin irritation testing. Fifty test items were evaluated in which both standard photometry and HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry were used for endpoint detection. The results obtained in this study: 1) provide further support for Within Laboratory Reproducibility of HPLC-UPLC-spectrophotometry for measurement of formazan; 2) demonstrate, through use a case study with Basazol C Blue pr. 8056, that HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry enables determination of an in vitro classification even when this is not possible using standard photometry and 3) addresses the question raised by SCCS in their 2010 memorandum (addendum) to consider an endpoint detection system not involving optical density quantification in in vitro reconstructed human epidermis skin irritation test methods., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cosmetics Europe, The Personal Care Association, known as Colipa before 2012, conducted a program of technology transfer and assessment of Within/Between Laboratory (WLV/BLV) reproducibility of the SkinEthic™ Reconstituted Human Corneal Epithelium (HCE) as one of two human reconstructed tissue eye irritation test methods. The SkinEthic™ HCE test method involves two exposure time treatment procedures - one for short time exposure (10 min - SE) and the other for long time exposure (60 min - LE) of tissues to test substance. This paper describes pre-validation studies of the SkinEthic™ HCE test method (SE and LE protocols) as well as the Eye Peptide Reactivity Assay (EPRA). In the SE WLV study, 30 substances were evaluated. A consistent outcome with respect to viability measurement across all runs was observed with all substances showing an SD of less than 18%. In the LE WLV study, 44 out of 45 substances were consistently classified. These data demonstrated a high level of reproducibility within laboratory for both the SE and LE treatment procedures. For the LE BLV, 19 out of 20 substances were consistently classified between the three laboratories, again demonstrating a high level of reproducibility between laboratories. The results for EPRA WLV and BLV studies demonstrated that all substances analysed were categorised similarly and that the method is reproducible. The SkinEthic™ HCE test method entered into the experimental phase of a formal ECVAM validation program in 2010., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The need for alternative approaches to replace the in vivo rabbit Draize eye test for evaluation of eye irritation of cosmetic ingredients has been recognised by the cosmetics industry for many years. Extensive research has lead to the development of several assays, some of which have undergone formal validation. Even though, to date, no single in vitro assay has been validated as a full replacement for the rabbit Draize eye test, organotypic assays are accepted for specific and limited regulatory purposes. Although not formally validated, several other in vitro models have been used for over a decade by the cosmetics industry as valuable tools in a weight of evidence approach for the safety assessment of ingredients and finished products. In light of the deadlines established in the EU Cosmetics Directive for cessation of animal testing for cosmetic ingredients, a COLIPA scientific meeting was held in Brussels on 30th January, 2008 to review the use of alternative approaches and to set up a decision-tree approach for their integration into tiered testing strategies for hazard and safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients and their use in products. Furthermore, recommendations are given on how remaining data gaps and research needs can be addressed.

Evaluation of the skin irritancy and corrosivity potential of an ingredient is a necessity in the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients. To date, there are two formally validated alternatives to the rabbit Draize test for skin corrosivity in place, namely the rat skin transcutaneous electrical resistance (TER) assay and the Human Skin Model Test using EpiSkin, EpiDerm and SkinEthic reconstructed human epidermal equivalents. For skin irritation, EpiSkin, EpiDerm and SkinEthic are validated as stand-alone test replacements for the rabbit Draize test. Data from these tests are rarely considered in isolation and are evaluated in combination with other factors to establish the overall irritating or corrosive potential of an ingredient. In light of the deadlines established in the Cosmetics Directive for cessation of animal testing for cosmetic ingredients, a COLIPA scientific meeting was held in Brussels on 30th January, 2008 to review the use of alternative approaches and to set up a decision tree approach for their integration into tiered testing strategies for hazard and safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients and their use in products. In conclusion, the safety assessments for skin irritation/corrosion of new chemicals for use in cosmetics can be confidently accomplished using exclusively alternative methods.

Background: Preservatives are an unfortunately common cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Often, this is in association with exposure to cosmetics or medicaments. Recently, a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) approach to the quantitation of safe exposure levels for sensitizers has been promulgated as a more effective tool for the identification of acceptable levels of potential sensitizers in consumer products., Objective: To assess this QRA approach, which facilitates the prediction of acceptable exposure levels to skin sensitizers in consumer products, levels that are normally below the threshold for the induction of skin sensitization., Methods: Retrospective QRA analysis on four preservatives in five consumer product types., Results: The analysis shows that functional levels of preservatives may be somewhat above an ideal exposure level for some product types, an outcome that is consistent with the clinical picture., Conclusion: QRA represents a new tool that in the future should be used in combination with the assessment of microbiologic protection needs of specific product types to limit the problem of preservative ACD.

The development of new ingredients and products for the consumer market requires a thorough assessment of their potential for skin sensitization and the possible clinical manifestation of allergic contact dermatitis. The process by which low molecular weight chemicals induce and elicit skin sensitization reactions is complex and dependent on many factors relevant to the ability of the chemical to penetrate the skin, react with protein, and trigger the cell-mediated immune response. These major factors include inherent potency, chemical dose, duration and frequency of exposure, vehicle or product matrix, and occlusion. The fact that a chemical is a contact allergen does not mean that it cannot be formulated into a consumer product at levels well tolerated by most individuals. Many common ingredients (e.g., fragrances, preservatives) are known skin allergens. However, all allergens show dose-response and threshold characteristics. Therefore, one should be able to incorporate these chemicals into products at levels that produce acceptably low incidences of skin sensitization under foreseeable conditions of exposure. The critical exposure determinant for evaluating skin sensitization risk is dose per unit area of skin exposed. Use of this parameter allows for comparative assessments from different types of skin sensitization tests (including cross-species comparisons), and, at least for known potent allergens, there is remarkable similarity in threshold dose/unit area determinations across species. The dose/unit area calculation enables a judgment of the sensitization risk for different product types. This is illustrated using the chemical preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) as a case study.

Abstract: Cosmetics Europe, The Personal Care Association (known as Colipa before 2012), conducted a program of technology transfer and within/between laboratory reproducibility of MatTek Corporation’s EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EIT) as one of the two human reconstructed tissue test methods. This EIT EpiOcular™ used a single exposure period for each chemical and a prediction model based on a cut-off in relative survival [⩽60%=irritant (I) (GHS categories 2 and 1); >60%=no classification (NC)]. Test substance single exposure time was 30min with a 2-h post-exposure incubation for liquids and 90min with an 18-h post-exposure incubation for solids. Tissue viability was determined by tetrazolium dye (MTT) reduction. Combinations of 20 coded chemicals were tested in 7 laboratories. Standardized laboratory documentation was used by all laboratories. Twenty liquids (11 NC/9 I) plus 5 solids (3 NC/2 I) were selected so that both exposure regimens could be assessed. Concurrent positive (methyl acetate) and negative (water) controls were tested in each trial. In all, 298 independent trials were performed and demonstrated 99.7% agreement in prediction (NC/I) across the laboratories. Coefficients of variation for the% survival for tissues from each treatment group across laboratories were generally low. This protocol has entered in 2010 the experimental phase of a formal ECVAM validation program. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]